About your Search

20121229
20121229
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11
commissioners have to say. >> president fong: commissioner antonini svttledz i know a couple -- >> commissionecouple -- >> commissioner antonini: a couple of speakers spoke about soundness during the construction process. this is an issue that has to do with department of building inspection. the project sponsor, in this sort of building, is responsible to make sure the shoring is adequate, that no damage is done to any of the adjacent properties. and that is not really an issue that we have control over here. it's something that needs to be taken up with during the permitting process. and it routinely is. and that would be mandatory that shoring be adequate and there be no adverse effects on adjacent properties from the excavation or anything else that's being done. in regards to the project itself, i think it's a very well-done. the house is extremely contextural, if you look at the renderings of the new building it fits in beautifully with the homes on the street, that unfortunately doesn't happen enough, and i think it's an example what can be done architecturally to make a home look like
. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye, wu, aye. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. you have two items commissioners, item 2 case 2012.05952(c) and item 3, 2012.6069(e) request for qunel use authorization. note that on november 29 following public testimony the commission closed the public hearing and adopted attempt to improve with -- with clear gazing and continue the item to today's date. >> president fong: is there any public comment on the two items on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> commissioner antonini: move to approve. >> second. >> the clerk: on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye, commissioner borden, aye, hillis, wu, aye, fong, aye. so moved that passes unanimously. commissioners, we are going to call items 9(a)
and will not be supporting the project. >> commissioner antonini? >> excuse me, commissioner wu i wanted to clarify that the zone the rm-1 zoning would not allow any additional units on this property. it's at its max mulch maximum right now. >> commissioner antonini. >> to be necessary and desire, you don't have to necessarily add another unit. i have seen additions to single-family homes and multi-dwelling units that make it nice to live. i would like to make a motion to approve with the following conditions, dropping the floor to floor height to 13' and take a 1.5 foot off of there and go with flat solar panels. i think the total floor to floor was 14.5, am i not wrong on that? >> i would just like an interpretation of this section. >> excuse me, that is okay. but the motion would be to take a foot and a half off and make flat solar panels and you have a nice, high interior space. >> commissioner sugaya, you are looking at interior height, 13. >> section you have floor to floor heights, as well as the floor dimensions. and it goes 8.1 8.1, 10 and then 13 feet is the way mine is dimensioned
, public comment is closed >>> commissioner antonini. >> thank you, i had a couple of questions on the memo. and i am led to believe when i first saw this, i thought it was the entire program. but this is only a memo dealing with the resale of existing ownership units and then dealing with the other entities here. for example, as i recall unless it's changed, your for-sale ownership units are 100 ami and it can be up to 120 in some instances, but i believe it's always been at 100 ami has been the price for-sale units. and then the rental units at 60 ami? >> that is correct, but there has been adjustment. there are two ami tables that we use in san francisco. there is a tri-county, or three county ami table. at one point the board of supervisors directed us to use a san francisco-specific table and given the relative wealth of our adjacent counties to the south and north, san francisco's ami is about 10% lower than the tri-county ami. so san francisco -- 100% ami is equivalent to 90% in san francisco and that is called out here. similarly on the rental side, it coordinates to
for questions, commissioner antonini? >> thank you. this is a very interesting proposal and i certainly can identify with it. i have a granddaughter who is looking for preschool in september and a few more on the way from what i understand. [ laughter ]. so it's an issue that affects all of us. there was some commentary about the other facilities that are available. and part of our packet includes a list of the various child-care facilities or preschools in the neighborhood or adjoining neighborhoods. but many of these are means of income tests. so people would not qualify if their income were higher than a certain level, or many of them closed at 2:30 and don't include a full days that one does. so i think there is no question that there is a need. and they would be principaled permitted at 15 or below and they are only going for five more children, which is why they are before us today. so i think there is a lot of potential for this. and i agree that i really like the university mound in the district. i know it very well having raised kids in the city and playing games over there, pa
? seeing none, commissioner antonini? >> mr. cowan spoke precisely of what i brought up on a number of instances and that is why i wasn't supportive, because i wasn't really clear on levels. this level that could float in certain instances say for example you brought the ami to 120-140 percentile, but you have to produce a higher percentage because your subsidy is less. so therefore, you begin to address the middle-class, because you get a couple of city employees, particularly if they are in public safety, and they are way above the levels that would be allowed by this program. they good to try to buy something and part of the provision with prop c, particularly with public safety officials, but i think using that in general is a good system. because you can build a higher number because your subsidy is less if the income levels are higher and the prices are sold are. so i think that is very good way to approach this. i had a couple of questions on some of these things brought up. i understand the rate stabilization, but in fairness to the renter, but i didn't know that i guess b
antonini? >> along those lines i remember when the earlier project was denied, i was working with project sponsor and the neighbors as to a design with a floor less. fortunately that was coming forward the 11th hour and many commissioners said we wish we would have seen that weeks ago. so that reinforces the fact that we have something that we're moving forward on this project. along those lines on similar projects that are in the general vicinity, the commission worked very hard with a different developer on the project that is now almost completed at polk and pacific; which is going to be, i think, a very attractive project, that went through some modification and also at sutter and van ness, under construction and nearing complete completion. i remember commissioner moore in particular had a lot of input on the design changes and the massing that makes a stronger cornice at a particular floor and makes it more sympathetic to the historic buildings that run along van ness there. in terms of cornices, the other thing and this is just a subtlety, but i looked at the before-and-after and i
comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini? >> thank you. well, it's an interesting project. and i do want to compliment -- i think the architect is here, if i am not mistaken. from the rendering it looks like not only has the penthouse been added, but the facade is being much improved over what was there in 1966, which was probably not the top of the architectural times. but it is, with the arches and some of the way that the windows are treated with french windows going in and some nice improvements to the facade of the building. but that is not what we're here for, because we're talking more about the impacts that this will have on adjacent properties. and as has been mentioned, two things are not protected, property line windows and views, but we always try to do whatever we can to protect those. we have the matching light wells, which is one way we do it and that will take care of most of the essential windows. and i understand that two property line windows will be recovered, but all the rest of them will not be covered. so i think that is probably done pretty well in that
that is my motion. >> second. >> commissioner antonini? >> i agree with that. i think it's a good establishment and i did have correspondence from one person that they were serving hard alcohol and that is clearly not the case. it's beer and wine. it's not a bridge and tunnel crowd, but a lot of locals from the neighborhood. so that sounds good to me, but i would go along with the conditions and what i hear is that the lighting on the outside -- the speaker on the outside has apparently already been corrected, but that is important that that stay that way and the light is minimized to the effect it's not interfering with anybody and the stage is moved to the rear. and windows closed at 10:00. and i don't know if there were any other conditions, commissioner? it's a step in the right direction? >> if i could clarify the conditions. currently no speakers are permitted on the exterior of the building and all windows closed during any performance of live entertainment and in addition to that, that all windows are closed period at 10:00 p.m.regardless of whether or not there is lif
to commissioners. commissioner antonini? >> thank you. i guess the first issue which was raised on a number of occasions is why this is before us? maybe mr. sanchez could tell us the reason why this new project is before us. >> thank you. so first, this is just an informational item. this is not an action item and there is not a project before you to approve or disprove, but the planning code states no application proposing an amendment, conditional use or variance, the same or substantially the same as that which was disapproved shall be resnit smieed or reconsidered by the planning commission or zoning administrator within a period of one year of effective action upon the earlier application this. is where the one-year bar has been raised and the planning code says you cannot submit the same or substantially the same project. it's a planning code provision and i reviewed the plans submitted and found it's not
circumstance. >> commissioner antonini? >> i would agree with commissioner sugaya. i know in "rear window," there this was a lot of that activity in that building being a hitchcock movie. this is different, because the people on the decks would have to turn, instead of looking at the garden and green space, actually look back to their east and to the east windows and again, we're in a city that people are always going to have windows. i don't see any other impacts. the dr request's home is the one that goes furthest into the open space as far as this project is concerned. so i don't see anything unusual or extraordinary in this project. >> commissioner moore? >> move to approve. >> second. >> i'm sorry, the proper wording is not take dr and approve >> commissioners on that motion to not take dr and approve the project as proposed. (roll call ) so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. and puts you on your final item on your calendar, public comment -- have i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment? if not, it's been a good year. >> than
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)